Assault Weapon AR-15 assault rifle
Bigstock

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com

The liberals demand one or more of several “solutions” to the mass shooting problem. One is to outlaw “assault weapons.” “Assault weapons” is a category invented by liberals. It has no particular meaning. One aspect of “assault weapons” is that they hold multiple bullets (as do, of course, most handguns, which they don’t classify as “assault weapons”). Former Vice President (and current contender for the Democratic nomination for president) Joe Biden has said no weapon should be able to hold more than one round. He may really believe that (a “Biden truth”), or he may simply have plagiarized the position from someone else.

A problem for liberals is that a ban on “assault weapons” has been tried (1994–2004). It failed. Even the Washington Post has said the results were, at best, inconclusive

Another liberal chestnut is stringent background checks. The problem with that is that people who can’t buy guns legally will simply get them illegally. (The Washington Post estimates that there are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States.) And many of the mass shooters have in fact gotten their guns legally. Liberals really just want to harass ordinary people who want to own guns—and they want a list of gun owners, the better to confiscate their guns some future day.

A third is a national “red flag” law. But fifteen states already have red flag laws, and there’s no indication that a national red flag law would work any better than the state laws have. In theory, states could seek restraining orders against people who are considered an imminent risk to commit gun violence. Hmm. How much power would that give the police in San Francisco to harass members of the National Rifle Association, which San Francisco has just declared a domestic terror organization? And what happens if Smith doesn’t like his neighbor Jones: he can sic the police on him under a red flag law, and then what happens to Jones’s Second Amendment rights?

That’s three strikes. The liberals are out.

– Daniel Oliver in Another Day, Another Shooting. Boring!

guns.com thousands of new and used guns at great prices

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

73 COMMENTS

  1. Has anyone pointed out to Shotgun Joe that his weapon of choice in fact holds more than one shot?

    • My uncle owns a single-shot 12-ga from the 1970s. Nice little gun.

      Though, to your point, he also owns a Remington 870 (6+1) and a KelTec (12+1). Shotties come in all flavors.

    • Got love how politics breeds experts like a sewer breeds mesquitoes. The term assault rifle wasn’t invented by the liberal media or the left at all unless you consider Hitler a liberal. It was Hitler who first used the term assault rifle when he named one of the early versions the Sterngavaor which literally means storming rifle or assault rifle. The term than began showing up in trade magazines. I’ve seen it used in magazines like Guns and Ammo dating back to the 1970s.

      I don’t pretend as the author does to have all the answers but I do know this much, doing nothing, the Republican solution, isn’t working. There was a time when Americans considered the lives of our children to be sacred and put their safety above their own Political agenda. Instead of telling us won’t work and attacking liberals how about you come up with real solutions to the problem?

      Steve Daly, LTC US Army retired

      • Thanks for signing your post; proof that the U.S. military is still providing quality education.
        I think you are referring to the STURMGEWEHR which literally means “storm rifle”, not “assault weapon”.

      • It is interesting sir that you see the parallel to Hitler that’s because there’s a new one who’s worse than the old one.I do see that you can see the problem with the treason and the ignoring of the Constitution let me help you out, these traitors committing a high-level treason have visions of empire and a disarmed populace for a totalitarian military dictatorship just like Nazi Germany. that way they can enslave all of us man woman and child, commit mass murder and genocide, a hostile overthrow of the United States, to be subverted and put under UN authority in all ways conceivable. Imagine government using terrorism on their own people in order to scare them to surrender their constitution…matter of fact, all Rights period. The government employees terrorism on its own people in order to scare the people into thinking that there is a gun crisis that’s out of control that the government manufacture themselves so the people will be convinced that they need to surrender their rights their liberties and their freedoms and their ability to protect himself against what is clearly the obvious enemy so they can receive peace safety and security but the truth is they will receive neither and they will lose both. the government wants to scare the public and black ball the entire nation into voluntary slavery. because even a brainless fool knows that it’s okay and everything will be just fine when only the government and criminals are the only ones with guns, you do have some Hitler history correct?

      • There are two different terms here. *Assault Rifle* and *Assault Weapon*. They are only synonymous when convenient. One has a real definition that doesn’t change and is already very, very heavily regulated under the NFA and FOPA ’86. The other has a definition that changes over time and is whatever the antis want it to be because it’s based not on function but on visible features that, really, don’t affect the rifle much at all in terms of it’s function or lethality.

        The Assault Rifle really exists. It has a definition. Part of that definition is that it is select fire, that is it has options for burst or full auto on the selector switch and these options actually do what they say they do. This is something like an M4, M16 StG44, full auto capable AK-47 etc.

        Assault Weapon on the other hand is an invented term. It does not refer to a select fire rifle. Rather it refers to whatever the anti gunners want to call an Assault Weapon, including pistols. Their definitions vary based on cosmetic features of the firearm in question. Adding or deleting something like a bayonet lug changed what *type* of rifle you had in your hands.

        This also applied to pistols. Some members of the US Olympic team found that suddenly their tricked out $3000 competition pistol chambered in .22LR was now illegal because the mag wasn’t inserted into the grip of the pistol and had another “assaulty” feature such as a threaded barrel or a barrel shroud.

        So yeah, there’s a big difference between an *Assault Rifle* with an actual static definition and an *Assault Weapon* which is whatever they happen to want to ban you from having and the definition of which can change tomorrow morning to include what you bought on Tuesday. THAT’S the problem.

        • If I pick up a stick or a rock and beat someone with it, it is now an “assault weapon”. Those things are everywhere.

      • Please stop…. So trying to equate your knowledge, or lack thereof, about the term “assault rifle”….. God please make him stop..
        Idiot.

  2. I agree, the left’s solutions won’t stop mass shootings and they do know it. That’s just the camouflage they wrap their true objective in: disarmament.

    • Well two points come to mind. During the last semi ban these events decreased as well as othere countries mass shootings stopped, ( see Australia’s statistics) and ok gun lovers what is your plan other than arming 5 year olds?

        • Think how much child abuse will drop if the little victims can shoot back…

          *snicker* 😉

      • These events decrease every year. Gun control has nothing to do with it. As far as semi bans in other countries, they didn’t cause any statistical difference. Suicides actually increased. Sure the disingenuous governments and their media stooges report lower “gun crime,” like it’s a real thing. But, actual crime, regardless of weapon, has increased well over 100%. Much more is some areas. If the actual point is to “save lives,” then the people must be allowed to protect themselves. Allowing the criminals free-reign over the weak is just plain stupid. There’s a reason the adage exists “God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.”

        • “…other violent crimes like rape and assault increased after the confiscation happened…”

          Ahhh…

          So, if you’re an anti-gunner, you want women raped. Leftists are more despicable than even I thought… 🙂

    • I guess everyone forgot about Columbine. 12 gauge and 9mm used. No scary 5.56 in sight.

      Parkland shooter used low capacity magazines.

      Why not look at cases individually and see what went wrong and what could be improved upon? The first obvious step would be target hardening. The second step would be utilizing existing laws. Punish criminals and prosecute threats.

      Once you have been successfully prosecuted for a violent crime, then you are disarmed. Unfortunately, democrats just don’t have the stomach for this because this would mostly be gang members.

      • The Parkland shoot was known to be a problem and potentially dangerous, however thanks to a program championed by Obama, the school and the local coward democrat sheriff refused to deal with him.

      • Because virtually every case in the last 30 years is an indictment of modern mental healthcare, not firearms. The pharmacopia involved in the individuals in question is copious and ubiquitous. There’s no way that’s going to be readily pointed out by those that are complicit.

      • The longer it takes to respond to a mass shooter, the higher the body count is – look it up. It really is that simple. Magazine capacity has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the case of Parkland, the lack of testicular capacity added to the response time – the cowards waited while the shooter ‘bated.
        Gun-free zones are the problem, plain and simple.

    • The left does not want solutions……they want the issue to run on, again and again……..like the (Failed) war on poverty, etc.

    • The anti-gun people know their laws won’t work because in their minds they didn’t go far enough and the next incident will give them further reason for more restrictions.

      A lesson learned from Australia. Even after a bureaucrat’s wish list of firearms laws became our NFA, handguns were further restricted a few years later, and Gun Control Australia calls foul on supposed loopholes and efforts to streamline processes as weakening the NFA.

  3. Civilian disarmament by a thousand cuts has always been their true objective. If they really wanted to end mass shootings it could be done tomorrow with a combination of armed security and conceal carry.

    • Exactamundo. I’ve been saying this over and over. National permitless (constitutional) carry would stop 90% of all such behavior pronto.

  4. Play the radio, make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, make sure the kids hear words. Problem solved. Let’s not overcomplicate this.

    • Everyone was all upset about Biden getting the wrong year for the assassinations of RFK and MLK, so what? That wasn’t the issue. Everybody missed the real issue. He remembered that they were killed during his senior year on college. The real issue was that he couldn’t remember what year he graduated from college!

      • He literally can’t remember what years he was vice president of the United States.

        That’s scary.

  5. Funny thing is, the left thinks taking guns away from others will keep them safe….until they take guns away from their body guards. Guns are illegal in Mexico. How’s that working out? Drugs are already illegal. How’s that working out? Just plain murder is illegal. Guess who’s not obeying that law? We just need more signs and “awareness” lectures, right? (sarc.)

    • They’re interested in disarming and punishing their political enemies (mostly law abiding right leaning folks), not urban criminals. They have already signaled that they aren’t interested in targeting gang members with red flag laws. Amazingly, this has received very little coverage.

      • “There are also caliber restrictions. No civilians are allowed to own “military” calibers.”

        That also means guns like the tiny Glock 42 were sold in Mexico long before being sold in the US…

    • Was it Clint Eastwood who said, “Taking a persons gun because others use them to murder makes as much sense as getting castrated because your neighbor has too many kids!”

      • Here is the quote, “Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.” As said by Clint Eastwood.

  6. “How much power would that give the police in San Francisco to harass members of the National Rifle Association, which San Francisco has just declared a domestic terror organization?”

    SFPD would have to do a lot of house cleaning first. Lots of NRA members/life members in that department.

      • Huh? You wrote “wood network equipment you know where”.

        At least, that’s what our glorious Google Overlords tell us in their Persian translator. Maybe a direct translation is something more like “stick your wood in your you-know-where”?

  8. The article walks right up to the edge, then stops short.

    The most important point is not that they “know” these restrictions don’t work, it is that they are DESIGNED to not work.

    If the gun-grabbers ever manage to implement a gun control that is by some miracle actually effective, they lose their ability to keep calling for MORE gun control.

    Take it to the bank, NO gun control law EVER proposed by the left will ever have a chance of reducing crime.

  10. O.k. We’re all just gonna let the gorilla and elephant screw in the punchbowl while we whine about the laws? Well, guess I’ll address them. This is the product of Congress feeling they need to make new laws in order to have done something with their terms. Ever notice every single campaign promises a new law for some infraction or to repeal another law? All laws boil down to basic rules: 1. Don’t Steal 2. Don’t Rape 3. Don’t Murder 4. Don’t discriminate against that group 5. Keep your hands to yourself. Then they tack on extra crap to modify sentencing and fit circumstances. I’m no law scholar and I know I’m over simplifying things but theft is only fraud after so much money and so many people. Rape is Rape no matter the genders or number of folks involved. Murder is always going to be murder no matter the circumstances, person A still killed person B for whatever reason and it is illegal unless justified. You cannot murder, assault, rape, steal from, or deny that person a job based on their belonging to a certain race, sexual orientation, or religion. Everything else is just window dressing and extra charges to be bargained away by a DA seeking a quick plea deal to keep their conviction rate pumped up. We keep making already illegal things more illegal and we keep tacking on longer and longer sentences for those crimes and yet it does little to nothing to actually lower the crime rate. LAWS DO NOT PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTS say again LAWS DO NOT PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTS.

  11. CA has red flag laws, an assault weapons ban, and universal background checks, and still has mass shootings. Most of their mass shootings, the perps purchased their weapons legally and passed a background check. I expect it would work just as well on a national level as a state one.

  12. Tyranny. is why we have them, if it comes to the Government overstepping the Constitutions meaning, then the Document spells out what should be done. All the rest is just conversation.

  13. OF COURSE, they know it!!!! They just want to screw with law-abiding citizens and communistically control everything. Nancy Pelosi could easily be another Stalin. Before you agree or disagree make sure you know his entire career all the way back to his activity in theological school.

  16. It’s simple math. Less guns, less problems. Anything else it’s mental gymnastics to make yourself feel better.

    • False. Most murder and violent crime is confined to the segment of the population that will always have access to firearms so fewer guns will not have an impact on anything other than possibly spree shootings.

      If your proposition were true Mexico and Brazil would be safe places.

  17. If my memory is correct there were no mass shootings in Australia, Scotland, New Zealand (and some others I can’t think of) before the 1 mass shooting that caused them to pass gun confiscation laws. So when there haven’t been any since then the anti’s try to say the gun confiscation worked. More of their lies and b.s. ignoring the facts. You can’t say a law stopped something that wasn’t occurring before the law was passed.

  18. The beautiful thing about “a weapon should only be able to hold one round” is that it’s already true. Every gun on the market has only one chamber, which holds only one round. (Unless it’s Shotgun Joe’s beloved double-barreled shotgun…shush, don’t tell anyone!)

    And in addition, there are these wonderful non-weapon devices that will hold all the extra rounds for you. Clipazines, I think they’re called. The cartridges don’t even have to be IN the gun to be useful. It’s brilliant!

  20. ” Former Vice President (and current contender for the Democratic nomination for president) Joe Biden has said no weapon should be able to hold more than one round.”

    Joe Biden is apparently in the first stages of dementia based on his performances recently on the debates and statements like these. And this is the guy who will probably be the Democratic nominee – assuming the DNC can screw Bernie Sanders out of the nomination one more time.

    If Trump can’t beat this guy, he should just forget about running again. Of course, if Trump is dumb enough to start a war with Iran that the US will never win, he might as well forget about it anyway.

  21. So as liberals are trying to find solutions all Republicans are doing is insulting said solutions while giving no answers themselves while we watch American citizens be murdered everyday. They say people will just obtain guns illegally anyway but dont worky that same logic to women receiving abortions. Republican ignorance will never seize to amaze me.

  22. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 such a nonsense article. Opinions aren’t facts. I was in need of a good laugh. For “the truth about guns” one strike and you are out. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  23. Well, DUH! It’s all about “Authoritarianism!”
    I just stopped arguing with Rabid, Lib TARD Gun Control groupies of the unwashed masses that thrive in my workplace. Their ALL vile, self-appointed, mob mentality, idiots, who could care less about the 2nd Amendment and can only angerly, regurgitate media talking points..About why U.S. citizens shouldn’t be “allowed” own “ak-47s, or ar-15, or Glocks…Or any WEAPONS!” Because THEY DON’T need one and YOU definitely shouldn’t either! Personally, This is NOT how our country should be operated…Like out of a Fμcking “Jerry Springer show”, being lead by hysterical housewives, Bi-polar loonies, and Hostile SJW mobs !!! I sure would like to move to another planet!

  24. Also ! The term “Assault Rifle ” is a misused WW2 German military designation for the 1st experimental rifle of its class, The Sturmgewehr STG 44. Also known as the “Storm Rifle of 1944…Or Assault Rifle” , because it was originally designed as a bridge to incorporate submachine gun, rifle, and squad support weapon with the capability to provide low recoil rounds, semi-auto and full automatic fire, and portability into one package…Anybody here who knows some firearms history should know this…

  25. Wow, quite the echo chamber in here.

    Did it ever occur to any of you that presuming or constructing the motivations and/or thoughts of people you don’t agree with is little more than mental masturbation?

  26. A web site that publishes such a litany of falsehoods and grotesquely partisan drivel should call itself Lies About Guns.

    First, this is NOT a “liberal” issue, as 93% of Americans, including most gun owners and NRA members. support universal background checks and 60% support an assault weapons ban.

    The 1994-2004 ban most certainly DID work, although in the limited way it was intended – reducing the number of such weapons used in homicides and police shootings – and the results were limited because the law had loopholes big enough to drive a Sherman tank through. A new law would be far more comprehensive.

    Also, research clearly shows that background checks and red flag laws work to reduce gun deaths – ironically, mostly of gun owners who resort to them in moments of despair to commit suicide.

    Second, the Founding Fathers instituted gun control laws far more strict than anything on the books today, including the registration of private firearms at militia musters and “impressment” (confiscation) of private weapons when needed for the public defense. These are not “liberal” ideas – they are as American as apple pie.

    Finally – the most blatant lie of all – it was the American gun industry which first and widely used the terms “assault weapon”, “assault rifle” and “assault pistol” in their advertisements in the 1980s, including in the NRA’s Rifleman magazine.

    Now let’s see of the gatekeepers of this site have the courage to print this comment or whether they will hide behind their lies, disinformation and partisan propaganda.

Comments are closed.